The article discusses the upcoming roster and player prospects. Notre Dame transfer Erin Boley is highlighted as most likely to take Bandos place on The roster and as a three point threat.

Boley is not half the 3pt shooter bando was and extremely slow.

Quote:

"I’m going to do whatever they need me to do, whatever it takes to be on the floor,” said Boley, the co-national high school player of the year with Ionescu in 2016, who redshirted this season while practicing with the Ducks. “I feel like I’m pretty versatile and I have a lot to offer. We’ll see as that comes around next year.

Hmmm. I'm thinking the anti-Boley snark might have some kind of personal bias here? If she was named co-national high school player of the year with Sabrina, she's gotta have a pretty decent upside. Let's see what she can do before judging. I believe Oregon is gonna be uber-mighty next season, Boley or not. She sure as hell ain't gonna hurt 'em.

The article discusses the upcoming roster and player prospects. Notre Dame transfer Erin Boley is highlighted as most likely to take Bandos place on The roster and as a three point threat.

Boley is not half the 3pt shooter bando was and extremely slow.

Quote:

"I’m going to do whatever they need me to do, whatever it takes to be on the floor,” said Boley, the co-national high school player of the year with Ionescu in 2016, who redshirted this season while practicing with the Ducks. “I feel like I’m pretty versatile and I have a lot to offer. We’ll see as that comes around next year.

Hmmm. I'm thinking the anti-Boley snark might have some kind of personal bias here? If she was named co-national high school player of the year with Sabrina, she's gotta have a pretty decent upside. Let's see what she can do before judging. I believe Oregon is gonna be uber-mighty next season, Boley or not. She sure as hell ain't gonna hurt 'em.

No bias only judging from what i saw her freshman season at ND. Maybe it was a confidence thing but i expected more with the incoming hype i guess. Not trying to offend, but she does not help oregons overall problem and thats obviously defense. She will be a great spot up corner shooter but i dont expect much.

Andy Landers -- someone I didn't feel was quite as good a coach as his reputation suggested -- made an interesting point during the tournament: He said something along the lines of there's a number you put up on the scoreboard, and if that number is high enough, the other team won't be able to match it.

I think his number was 84, but the overall idea makes sense: If a team like Oregon comes out and scores 84 points, say, and plays below average defense (not horrid, just below average), how many teams are capable of scoring 85?

There's also a style and pace of play issue. As a high school coach, when I had good teams, my message was pretty simple: If we get this game into the 60s, our chances of winning are very high; if we get to the 70s, we will have to work hard to lose.

So from Oregon's perspective: We're going to get 80, and maybe 90. Try to catch us ...

Andy Landers -- someone I didn't feel was quite as good a coach as his reputation suggested -- made an interesting point during the tournament: He said something along the lines of there's a number you put up on the scoreboard, and if that number is high enough, the other team won't be able to match it.

I think his number was 84, but the overall idea makes sense: If a team like Oregon comes out and scores 84 points, say, and plays below average defense (not horrid, just below average), how many teams are capable of scoring 85?

There's also a style and pace of play issue. As a high school coach, when I had good teams, my message was pretty simple: If we get this game into the 60s, our chances of winning are very high; if we get to the 70s, we will have to work hard to lose.

So from Oregon's perspective: We're going to get 80, and maybe 90. Try to catch us ...

But that might also explain the "hump". So if that's Oregon's approach, they can be really good, they can compete for and maybe even win the PAC, but what happens when they finally have to beat some of those top half dozen national teams that CAN score 90. What happens when they get to the Elite Eight or Final Four? Can they get over that hump without playing a lick of defense?

The UConns and NDs and Marylands and Baylors and Louisvilles typically can score 90. What happens when your "let them try to match us" isn't enough?

Andy Landers -- someone I didn't feel was quite as good a coach as his reputation suggested -- made an interesting point during the tournament: He said something along the lines of there's a number you put up on the scoreboard, and if that number is high enough, the other team won't be able to match it.

I think his number was 84, but the overall idea makes sense: If a team like Oregon comes out and scores 84 points, say, and plays below average defense (not horrid, just below average), how many teams are capable of scoring 85?

There's also a style and pace of play issue. As a high school coach, when I had good teams, my message was pretty simple: If we get this game into the 60s, our chances of winning are very high; if we get to the 70s, we will have to work hard to lose.

So from Oregon's perspective: We're going to get 80, and maybe 90. Try to catch us ...

Clay, in my opinion OR went away from its game plan in the second half and Ionescu tried to play hero ball. Graves lost control as if you listen to his comments leading up to that point he wanted Carzola managing the game and they lost their way in the second half by not keeping everyone involved.

Andy Landers -- someone I didn't feel was quite as good a coach as his reputation suggested -- made an interesting point during the tournament: He said something along the lines of there's a number you put up on the scoreboard, and if that number is high enough, the other team won't be able to match it.

I think his number was 84, but the overall idea makes sense: If a team like Oregon comes out and scores 84 points, say, and plays below average defense (not horrid, just below average), how many teams are capable of scoring 85?

There's also a style and pace of play issue. As a high school coach, when I had good teams, my message was pretty simple: If we get this game into the 60s, our chances of winning are very high; if we get to the 70s, we will have to work hard to lose.

So from Oregon's perspective: We're going to get 80, and maybe 90. Try to catch us ...

But that might also explain the "hump". So if that's Oregon's approach, they can be really good, they can compete for and maybe even win the PAC, but what happens when they finally have to beat some of those top half dozen national teams that CAN score 90. What happens when they get to the Elite Eight or Final Four? Can they get over that hump without playing a lick of defense?

The UConns and NDs and Marylands and Baylors and Louisvilles typically can score 90. What happens when your "let them try to match us" isn't enough?

I suppose it's a matter of what your goals and expectations are.

So if you can create defense -- and you certainly can emphasize it -- then you would do so. But it might come at the cost of emphasizing offense.

First, if Oregon is any less efficient offensively, do they have any chance to beat the teams you mention? But what if they're more effective? What if they score 95?

I'm not saying this is Oregon's strategy, but I am saying it is a strategy. You can win with defense, you can win with offense but obviously it's easier to win if you're really good at both. But what if the best you can do on one side or the other is be average -- would a better investment of time and energy be to maximize your strength or try to minimize your weakness?

Oregon, or any team with obvious deficiencies (which is most teams), has a lot of decisions to make about goals, expectations and strategies. Again, I make no claim to knowing what Kelly Graves is thinking, nor do I have any insight into the strength of the newcomers, but you figure out who wins the game by who scores the most points, so at a certain level and with a certain collection of talent, it makes sense to do all that you can to score as many points as possible.

It's now up to your opponents to play your game, not theirs, and that in itself is an advantage.

And finally, Oregon does not have the athletes that the other top teams do, and athleticism plays particularly well on defense. So if you lack the ability to match teams defensively, why not focus on the other end, where you can excel?

As for Sabrina playing hero ball, a fair point, and a criticism that's been leveled before. She is only a sophomore, however, and it wasn't like anyone else was stepping up -- still, making better decisions of those kinds would, one hopes, come with maturity.

You can win with defense, you can win with offense but obviously it's easier to win if you're really good at both. But what if the best you can do on one side or the other is be average -- would a better investment of time and energy be to maximize your strength or try to minimize your weakness?

You can win with defense, you can win with offense but obviously it's easier to win if you're really good at both. But what if the best you can do on one side or the other is be average -- would a better investment of time and energy be to maximize your strength or try to minimize your weakness?

You can win with defense, you can win with offense but obviously it's easier to win if you're really good at both. But what if the best you can do on one side or the other is be average -- would a better investment of time and energy be to maximize your strength or try to minimize your weakness?

I've said that to many teams, many times -- but the truth is that scoring more points than the other team, regardless of how many rebounds you get, wins championships.

How do you know any other player would step up when they never touched the ball. I would say lexi is always ready to shoot it and has a pretty good chance a t making them and that just one other player.

You can win with defense, you can win with offense but obviously it's easier to win if you're really good at both. But what if the best you can do on one side or the other is be average -- would a better investment of time and energy be to maximize your strength or try to minimize your weakness?

You can win with defense, you can win with offense but obviously it's easier to win if you're really good at both. But what if the best you can do on one side or the other is be average -- would a better investment of time and energy be to maximize your strength or try to minimize your weakness?

. . . the truth is that scoring more points than the other team . . . wins championships.

You're the philosopher. Isn't that just a tautology? Or circular reasoning?

In order to score points, the offense must have the ball. It gets the ball via defense and rebounding.

Or is all this a zen koan chicken and egg?

Another maxim: Things are never as simple as they seem.

But that said, the single most important skill in basketball is scoring, because that's how you decide who wins. Obviously, you must have the ball to score, but if you cannot score efficiently, it doesn't matter how many times you have the ball. And if you are a great defensive team, you can make it very hard for the other team to score, but you still have to score more than they do.

Everyone would like to have a team that scores, defends and rebounds at a high level, but there are precious few of those. Generally, delivering two out of three at a high level equals success, but if I have to choose only one, I'll take scoring every time. If we're an elite scoring team and average in the other two, we will be a team that has a puncher's chance in every single game because we just might get 90.

You can win with defense, you can win with offense but obviously it's easier to win if you're really good at both. But what if the best you can do on one side or the other is be average -- would a better investment of time and energy be to maximize your strength or try to minimize your weakness?

Pat-godresthersoul-was a Maestro. And that line is catchy. But I have no doubt she strove to have teams strong in all THREE, for Best Results. Defense winning games as a sole mantra can be 'overdone'....[See: CViv].

The problem with being entirely focused on offense is that the ball will not always drop and then your scr*wed. That's what happened against ND.

Graves is mostly focused on offense but he needs to know when to make adjustments to game conditions that call for a slightly different tactic. They got killed against Miss. St. because they had no one on the floor to even come close to matching up with McCowan and Vivians was killing them from outside. I watched their games quite a bit and he should have brought in Giomi. He hardly played her at all in the beginning but she is his best post defender. She blocks out really well, is quick and covers a lot of defensive territory. She would ( with her length) at least have kept McCowan from getting and scoring off offensive rebounds. They had Gildon and Campisano attempt to block her out but she just got the rebound over the top and consistently scored on those put-backs. I think Graves got the hint because he began to give Giomi more playing time before she hurt her ankle. She is not the offensive threat that either Hebard or MgGuire is but sometimes you need to sacrifice on one end of the court for the other.

I wonder with Boley and the other Sabally sister coming in how many defections they will have during the off season.

I also noticed that Sabrina reverted to "hero ball" when she should have continued to pass and create better shots. She plays her best when she scores within the context of offensive flow. ND just doubled her and pretty much kept her in check.

Again, I didn't say that score-first-and-only is Graves' strategy, I said it was "a strategy."

And please note that when Graves was the lead assistant at Portland, Portland was a WCC power. When he was at St. Mary's, St. Mary's got to the second round of the tournament and led Tennessee in the second half. When he was at Gonzaga, he took a nice program and made it into a power. And in his short time at Oregon, he's turned a bottom-dweller into a program that has its own thread on RebKell.

Ten of Oregon's roster were underclassmen including starters Sabally (F), Ionescu (Soph)) and Hebard(Soph). That could go a long way to explaining their defensive lapses. Three of their 5 losses came against final four teams. I expect them to be among the top 4 or 5 teams in the nation next season and to revisit the FF.

From what i understand their freshman PG Ayuso has returned to Spain to play professionally. That will hurt them more than people might think. She would play the part that Carzola plays, when Carzola graduates or if she would be injured next season. Carsola is a perfect balance for Sabrina. it keeps her from being too ball dominate. Ayuso is a very talented player who many think is better than Carsola was at her stage. The effects of her absence will not really be felt until Carsola is gone, but it's a bit loss.